Subscribe to Search results

In a Macfarlane Trust trustees' meeting the APPG Inquiry report was discussed. It was summed up by one trustee as "as good as could have been expected in the circumstances"; another thought the review flawed from the outset, that the beneficiary community had not commented on it, and the report had not recommended that the Alliance House Organisations be abolished.

Published on:

At the meeting of the board of trustees the chair, Christopher FitzGerald, reminded the trustees that "one of the objects of introducing the policy for discretionary 'top-up' payments had been to remove the need both for 'one-off grants (other than in exceptional circumstances)' and for 'across the board' seasonal payments."

Published on:

The Macfarlane Trust NSSC requested a notice from the chief executive be placed on the website stating that grants could be awarded in exceptional circumstances.

Published on:

Russell Mishcon proposed that the trustees should write to the Department of Health threatening to resign unless it provided better funding. It was recorded that "Whilst several trustees were still in favour of sending the letter, others were either unsure or against, and two trustees were also not present. Roger Evans was not prepared to sign the letter."

Published on:

The principal criterion for assessing grant applications by the NSSC became one of "exceptional circumstances".

Published on:

Alisa Wight wrote to Roger Evans "that there is a requirement to clearly define the basis on which the Board assesses the charitable need of its beneficiaries in a consistent and transparent way, and payments adjusted accordingly."

Published on:

"Exceptional circumstances" were defined as "circumstances that have arisen or are threatened which, in the opinion of the NSSC/Board of Trustees, are unlikely to have been anticipated by a beneficiary in the ordinary course of events and/or it is unreasonable to expect a beneficiary to have to deal with the financial outcome from their normal income."

Published on:

The board of trustees agreed to distribute the bulk of the reserves through a targeted, time-limited grants programme administered by the Macfarlane Trust. Following this, any remaining reserves would be given to a third party charity for distribution in line with fixed criteria.

Published on:

The board of trustees of the Macfarlane Trust noted that 74 grant applications had been received and the total amount that had been requested was £649,043.17.

Published on:

The Trust recorded the decision regarding the Honeycombe Fund, and accepted legal advice that the funds and assets could be transferred to the Terrence Higgins Trust. This would be subject to a restriction that the funds and assets transferred would be restricted to supporting the purposes set out in the scheme.

Published on:

In an interview with Russell Mishcon, Peter Stevens said he considered the Trust was a "short term fix".

Published on:

Peter Stevens stated in an interview: "I think they were caught out by the lack of favourable response, which was why they then introduced the two capital payments and then, at that stage, I think they thought: 'Well okay that's done and dusted, these people have only a couple more years to go and we're off the hook."

Published on:

Liz Carroll wrote to Jan Barlow. She stated that she would be writing to the Minister about "our whole conversation, including your thoughts on possible outcomes from the Penrose Inquiry and your possible plans to...suggest the potential of merging the 3 charities to simplify the complex system currently in place"

Published on:

The Department of Health asked the Trust that a business case be submitted to support the Trust's funding request. It asked that the case should detail why the reserve had not been used for charitable purposes and what had changed to merit its distribution now.

Published on:

At a meeting with Department of Health officials Reverend Tanner stated that the meeting had been sought because the Trust was looking for an "assurance" that the policies and practices adopted were "rightly fulfilling the objectives envisaged by the Government in setting up the Trust."

Published on:

A briefing paper to the Macfarlane Trust's NSSC noted that social workers and consultants had expressed unhappiness at late changes in policy regarding respite grants.

Published on:

In a report on a visit to Mr and Mrs [Anon] at Birmingham University Hospital, Susan Daniels noted that she had wondered whether "compassion is still an objective of the Trust in dealing with its members" and that "Delaying a decision on somebody who is already in a highly stressful condition can be as bad as a poor decision, perhaps worse."

Published on:

In the meeting minutes of the Macfarlane Trust's NSSC outlining a Head of Services Support Report by Jude Cohen, it was noted that many beneficiaries of the Trust would not let a regional support worker into the house.

Published on:

In a report to the NSSC titled "Redecoration to bedroom, kitchen, living room and school uniform" a series of papers were attached, including a report from Susan Daniels which noted that many registrants felt the Trust was a major stress point in their life.

Published on:

The NSSC recommended that single grants to primary beneficiaries would end after 31 March 2010.

Published on: